Faced with the imperial logic of Russia and the United States, Europe must, to preserve its security and peace on its soil, rearm massively. This goes through two imperatives. The first is to tell the Trump administration that we take note of his support for Vladimir Putin – for reasons in passing that we will carefully investigate – and his more or less explicit will to put an end to his alliance with Europe.
The future German Chancellor Friedrich Merz took note and declared at the evening of his victory his desire to get Germany out of his military dependence on the United States. Well done ! May this courage and this clarity decide with its tasteless predecessor! France is also on this Gaullian line. If the Polish government of Donald Tusk also decides to follow this path, it could be said that the European Union finally emancipates militarily to protect itself. A historical and salutary change which will not prevent us, on the contrary, from reconnecting fraternal links with the United States the day this country is again led by responsible persons. Thanks to European strategic autonomy, the post-Trump democratic world will be stronger.
The second imperative is to increase our defense budgets. All of Europe goes more or less quickly in this direction, but it must be done by understanding and explaining what is in play from an economic point of view. In 2024, military spending by European countries members of NATO and Canada were already around 430 billion euros (according to the organization) which is higher than the expenses of Russia (415 billion in purchasing power parity). This figure is reassuring.
Putin’s regime is trying to make people believe that Europe is a military bonsai against the Russian baobab. This is absolutely false. France and the United Kingdom have nuclear weapons. European spending is high and, as I explained in these columns last week, European defense companies cover almost all of the sector’s value chain. To reach military autonomy is therefore a possible objective.
GDP, the key to European rearmament
There is nevertheless a subject which is not yet mentioned by European governments and which is however crucial to protect itself in the face of imperial logics. The financing of this defense effort and therefore of peace is as much of the political will as of macroeconomic considerations of which the pedagogy must be made. Indeed, defense expenses are the product on their part in GDP and GDP. Wanting to increase our defense effort to 3, 4 or 5 % of GDP without mentioning the GDP in question is to omit most of the subject: Europe will not know peace without much higher economic growth. To protect themselves, our continent must therefore produce more and generate more income.
So here is Europe in the face of a classic macroeconomic requirement: increase its growth. Not only, as is often the case, to respond to social challenges (increase wages or social transfers) but to protect our civilization. It is this imperative that the Popular Front of Leon Blum had not understood or wanted to understand, as Robert Marjolin restores in his Memoirshe who was an advisor to Blum before, for these macroeconomic reasons, to move away from them and become one of the relatives of Raymond Aron. By reducing working time (and also refusing to vote for military credits), the Popular Front has weakened France against Germany. Let us not redo this error.
Increasing working time, restricting access to unemployment insurance, retiring later, radically simplifying business life, freeing innovation are now security imperatives. We will meet that the configuration of the Parliament does not allow the adoption of such a program. In this case, let’s place parliamentarians and political figures of the left and the RN before their responsibility. Raphaël Glucksmann, although he supported the shameful alliance of the NFP, wants to be at the forefront in the fight against the Russian threat. That it shows it factually by supporting an economic power program. As for the RN, it would have the opportunity to show where it is economically and diplomatically: on the side of economic weakness and military dependence or on the side of patriotism. Because, for the moment, it is not very clear.
.